Can 11D Space Crumple Into 3D Universe and Create Wormholes?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter phoenixthoth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Manifold
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of higher-dimensional spaces, specifically 11-dimensional space, and its potential relationship with our three-dimensional universe. Participants explore the implications of Nash's embedding theorem and whether such a crumpling could lead to the existence of wormholes. The conversation touches on theoretical aspects of manifold embedding, dimensionality, and the nature of smoothness in these contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that 11-dimensional space could crumple into our three-dimensional universe, potentially resulting in wormholes due to the loss of smoothness.
  • Others clarify that Nash's theorem does not specifically state that a manifold can be embedded in R^3, as the ambient dimension must be at least as great as the manifold's dimension.
  • A participant mentions the distinction between Nash's big and small embedding theorems, suggesting that the context of smoothness affects the embedding possibilities.
  • Another participant asserts that an n-dimensional manifold cannot be embedded in an m-dimensional manifold if m is less than n, emphasizing a limitation in dimensionality.
  • One participant notes that for a Lorentzian metric, the required dimensions for embedding could be significantly higher, suggesting around ninety dimensions may be necessary.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of Nash's embedding theorem and the feasibility of embedding higher-dimensional spaces into lower dimensions. There is no consensus on whether the crumpling of higher-dimensional space could lead to wormholes, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of smoothness and dimensionality, as well as unresolved mathematical steps regarding the conditions under which embeddings can occur.

phoenixthoth
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
2
nash proved that any manifold can be embedded in R^3 in which the higher dimensional manifold gets crumpled and smoothness is lost.

is it possible that 11 dimensional space has already crumpled into our three dimensional universe and that wormholes exist precisely as a direct result of the crumpling?

cheers,
phoenix
 
Physics news on Phys.org
there was a big embedding theorem by nash, which is the one you're talking about, and a small embedding theorem, which is the one I'm talking about. it was mentioned in the "a beautiful mind," but i can't find the paper on the web.

cheers,
phoenix
 
i did a little more research and found this quote from nash's autobiographical essay for winning the nobel:

So as it happened, as soon as I heard in conversation at M.I.T. about the question of the embeddability being open I began to study it. The first break led to a curious result about the embeddability being realizable in surprisingly low-dimensional ambient spaces provided that one would accept that the embedding would have only limited smoothness. And later, with "heavy analysis", the problem was solved in terms of embeddings with a more proper degree of smoothness.

so again i ask this: is it possible that the higher dimensional space has either fully or partially collapsed in the three dimensional space and that the nonsmoothness has resulted in wormholes?
 
I repeat, no. An n-dimensional manifold cannot be embedded in an m-dimensional manifold for m < n.
 
a lot more

actually if you want a lorentzian metric in both manifold, the embedding rises, it needs a lot more of dimensions. About ninety or so, perhaps.
 


Originally posted by arivero
actually if you want a lorentzian metric in both manifold, the embedding rises, it needs a lot more of dimensions. About ninety or so, perhaps.

glad you are back, long time no see
I need to know the Cartan subgroup of SL(2,C)
(I am told there is just one and I suspect it is
the diagonal matrices but am not sure)
 


Originally posted by marcus
glad you are back, long time no see
I need to know the Cartan subgroup of SL(2,C)
(I am told there is just one and I suspect it is
the diagonal matrices but am not sure)

Hi!

I am back just on a errand for nuclear data. I am afraid I can not confirm your guess -it seems a good one- without browsing across manuals :-( Two years teaching computer science and you see, one loses the training.
 
In the Archive section of this forum I just posted what I think is the Weyl group of SL(2,C). These are new ideas for me, they seem nice

I think the normalizer of the (main) diagonal matrices in SL(2,C) consists of the union of the major and minor diagonal matrices

and then N(H)/H the Weyl group comes down to Z_2

which just flips the diagonal matrix to the other direction--major to minor and viceversa, but there is a minus sign in there too

you can't fool me, you have not gotten all that rusty by teaching computer science. it could even give you ideas
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
Graduate Knots In 4D
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
7K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K